 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / August 2004A couple of questions
I *know* that every diet ever invented, whether it is low fat, low carbohydrate, low calorie or low-anything-else says that You Must Eat Breakfast. However, I'm finding quite the easiest way to drop my calorie intake is to not eat breakfast. This morning I frankly forgot! I found I was on my way to the supermarket before I remembered I hadn't eaten anything and, by the time I came home again, it was too late, and nearly lunch-time, or at least nearly time to make a batch of ABC soup (Alliums, broccoli and cabbage) (for recipe, see http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/Recipes/ABC.html) On Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday mornings, we are at the ice rink by 7.00 or shortly thereafter; I simply can't eat that early, but usually eat a banana before I get on the ice. And, increasingly, I'm finding that this lasts me all morning. Can anybody see any reason why this won't do? The other question is this: we are forever hearing that top athletes eat salad, pasta, chicken and fish, and permutations on that theme. But why pasta? I thought it was supposed to have a high GI index, so Bad For You. Wouldn't brown rice be better?  SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 > I *know* that every diet ever invented, whether it is low fat, low > carbohydrate, low calorie or low-anything-else says that You Must Eat > Breakfast. The Warrior diet says you should skip breakfast (and lunch). > However, I'm finding quite the easiest way to drop my calorie intake is > to not eat breakfast. This morning I frankly forgot! I found I was on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (Alliums, broccoli and cabbage) (for recipe, see > http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/Recipes/ABC.html) If it works for you, there is nothing wrong with skipping breakfast. Just keep an eye on your results (health and weight). If it works, keep using it, if it does not, try something else. > On Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday mornings, we are at the ice rink by > 7.00 or shortly thereafter; I simply can't eat that early, but usually > eat a banana before I get on the ice. And, increasingly, I'm finding > that this lasts me all morning. Can anybody see any reason why this > won't do? I see no reason if it works for you. > The other question is this: we are forever hearing that top athletes > eat salad, pasta, chicken and fish, and permutations on that theme. > But why pasta? I thought it was supposed to have a high GI index, > so Bad For You. Wouldn't brown rice be better? Are you an athlete? Are you performing strenuous exercise? (say, running 10 miles in the morning to keep in shape and get in the mood for the day full of real exercise) If not, then you should not eat like one. i I had asked: >> The other question is this: we are forever hearing that top athletes >> eat salad, pasta, chicken and fish, and permutations on that theme. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >If not, then you should not eat like one. I fail to see what this has to do with the question I asked. I asked whether pasta was a high-glycemic food, which is what I had thought it was. If you don't know the answer, please don't go off into some sort of rant. FYI I am an ice-skater, and practice at least 4 days/week for up to 3 hours at a time; at 51, that is probably enough right now. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 > I had asked: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > asked whether pasta was a high-glycemic food, which is what I had > thought it was. try this link http://www.glycemicindex.com/ Pasta: 45 Brown Rice: 66 Please note that this glycemic index is a very fickle measurement. First, it depends on the person eating, as different people digest different foods differently. Second, it depends on how long you boil the food. Third, all that low GI means is that you get your sugar in the blood a little later. More of a timing issue. > If you don't know the answer, please don't go off > into some sort of rant. FYI I am an ice-skater, and practice at > least 4 days/week for up to 3 hours at a time; at 51, that is > probably enough right now. Good for you! i >try this link > >http://www.glycemicindex.com/ > >Pasta: 45 >Brown Rice: 66 Thanks. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 >I had asked: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >of rant. FYI I am an ice-skater, and practice at least 4 days/week for >up to 3 hours at a time; at 51, that is probably enough right now. To answer your question - in general, yes, pasta is high in GI. (most being generally 40+ on the scale. many in the 90's) And to ellaborate on Iggy's comment about carbs and altheltes. He's probably referring to marathon runners, etc. The fact that you scate 3hrX4days, although it probably keeps you very fit and active, it is not quite the same as a marathon running prepping for a long marathon. It boils down to one of the common dieting myths circulating lately that people hear, (for example, runners) eat lots of pasta before a race, and look how skinny they are... therefore I should eat pasta and I'll be skinny too.... Likewise another example is for powerlifters and body builders who consume large dosages of protein, and people then think that consuming mass doses of protein will build them more muscles. The reality is, for the *average* person who is active and fit, consuming these extra foods will only add pounds, and not necessarily increase performance, decrease weight or build muscle. They have to be in the "all else equal" situation. Yeah, if they were running 25miles a day 7 days a week, then yes... but for someone who works out 3 to 4 times a week for a few hours at a time, its not necessary. "No. No. Our private conversations have not been such that I'm anxious to continue them. Forgive me for speaking so bluntly, but it is the truth." --as Joel Cairo in THE MALTESE FALCON (1941). >>I had asked: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > To answer your question - in general, yes, pasta is high in GI. > (most being generally 40+ on the scale. many in the 90's) It's also very dependent on, say, how long you boil it and what is the ingredient list. > And to ellaborate on Iggy's comment about carbs and altheltes. He's > probably referring to marathon runners, etc. The fact that you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > consume large dosages of protein, and people then think that consuming > mass doses of protein will build them more muscles. Yep... > The reality is, for the *average* person who is active and fit, > consuming these extra foods will only add pounds, and not necessarily > increase performance, decrease weight or build muscle. They have to > be in the "all else equal" situation. Yeah, if they were running > 25miles a day 7 days a week, then yes... but for someone who works > out 3 to 4 times a week for a few hours at a time, its not necessary. It also depends on the person. Some people are so healthy that regular carb loading would be nothing for them. They'd eat a big plate of pasta and not be hungry for the rest of th day. Some people are not so lucky and would experience a rise in blood glucose and then a fall and some hunger due to that. i >It also depends on the person. Some people are so healthy that regular >carb loading would be nothing for them. They'd eat a big plate of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >i I've turned into one of the not so luckies... I get headaches from carb loads, and then I get sleepy, and then I get hungry later. Today I made the mistake of having a bagel at breakfast and I'm fighting the headache and sleepies.... "No. No. Our private conversations have not been such that I'm anxious to continue them. Forgive me for speaking so bluntly, but it is the truth." --as Joel Cairo in THE MALTESE FALCON (1941). >>It also depends on the person. Some people are so healthy that regular >>carb loading would be nothing for them. They'd eat a big plate of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I've turned into one of the not so luckies... I get headaches from > carb loads, and then I get sleepy, and then I get hungry later. So have I. I actually bought a cheap blood glucose meter and experimented. I found out that eating a lot of carbs is doing me no good. $30 bougt me the meter, strips, etc, and in fact it is very educational to see just where I am in this respect. Considering that there is some history of diabetes in my family, I consider this a very cheap investment. > Today I made the mistake of having a bagel at breakfast and I'm > fighting the headache and sleepies.... Sorry to hear about that... i >It also depends on the person. Some people are so healthy that regular >carb loading would be nothing for them. They'd eat a big plate of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >i Yes, but we are not talking about "carb loading" here; we're talking about a helping of pasta as part of a balanced main meal! SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 >>It also depends on the person. Some people are so healthy that regular >>carb loading would be nothing for them. They'd eat a big plate of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Yes, but we are not talking about "carb loading" here; we're talking >about a helping of pasta as part of a balanced main meal! And - unless you are following a "low carb" diet - there is nothing wrong with the occasional serving of pasta with a balanced meal plan. "No. No. Our private conversations have not been such that I'm anxious to continue them. Forgive me for speaking so bluntly, but it is the truth." --as Joel Cairo in THE MALTESE FALCON (1941). >> The other question is this: we are forever hearing that top athletes >> eat salad, pasta, chicken and fish, and permutations on that theme. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >morning to keep in shape and get in the mood for the day full of real >exercise) I've never found the concept of GI index to have any weight-loss relevance for me. Others' experience may differ. BTW, just last night I read the new issue of Hers Magazine (from Muscle & Fitness, I believe). The whole issue was about how women Olympians train and eat -- fascinating stuff. There was a particularly interesting article about timing one's meals to fit with one's activities. Chris >>> The other question is this: we are forever hearing that top athletes >>> eat salad, pasta, chicken and fish, and permutations on that theme. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I've never found the concept of GI index to have any weight-loss > relevance for me. Others' experience may differ. Are you saying that GI is not a good measurement, or that for you, it does not matter if you eat 100 calories from sugar vs, say, 100 calories from fat, as far as your satiety is concerned? > BTW, just last night I read the new issue of Hers Magazine (from > Muscle & Fitness, I believe). The whole issue was about how women > Olympians train and eat -- fascinating stuff. There was a > particularly interesting article about timing one's meals to fit > with one's activities. Olympians who compete in aerobic or anaerobic sports? i >> I've never found the concept of GI index to have any weight-loss >> relevance for me. Others' experience may differ. > >Are you saying that GI is not a good measurement, or that for you, it >does not matter if you eat 100 calories from sugar vs, say, 100 >calories from fat, as far as your satiety is concerned? It doesn't seem to have any significance from any perspective for me. But it isn't just about fat vs. sugar; there are more weird differences -- like cherries are really low and watermelon really high, and lima beans are way lower than fava beans, and rice bran is way lower than oat bran. I certainly don't experience any difference in satiety from eating one of these than the other. For that matter, I've never noticed a difference in satiety between the same number of calories from sugar as from fat. If anything, I'd probably feel more satieted eating 170 calories worth of cereal or potato than 170 calories worth of peanuts, due to the greater bulk. But I think the more significant argument made in favor of eating low GI foods is that because they presumably raise blood sugar much less than the higher GI foods, avoiding carb cravings a few hours later. As I've said before, I've just never noticed this side effect. (As an example, both days this weekend I ate far too many sweets at lunch. And both days I didn't get hungry again for anything until 8-9 hours later. And then it definitely was not for sweets or other carbs.) Some athletes I know limit carb intake (though most talk about "healthy" vs. "unhealthy" carbs, not specifically about GI index). Others eat carbs freely. Almost all eat carbs before a competitive event. (One reason for this, apart from a quicker energy hit, is that digesting carbs is easier on most people's stomachs than digesting fats or proteins.) I only worry about carb content to the extent that I want to get some reasonable balance of nutrients and a somewhat greater than average level of protein, so need to spend my calories accordingly. >> BTW, just last night I read the new issue of Hers Magazine (from >> Muscle & Fitness, I believe). The whole issue was about how women [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Olympians who compete in aerobic or anaerobic sports? A mix. Offhand, the ones I remember reading about competed in swimming (short and long distance), running (from sprint to marathon), triathlon, gymnastics, wrestling (I didn't know women did this), weighlifting, cycling, water polo, synchronized swim, softball, and pole vault. Some amazing stuff -- the marathoner runs 10-24 miles in the morning, then another 4-6 before dinner. She also lifts weights 3 days a week. Chris 262/143/ (145-150) >>> I've never found the concept of GI index to have any weight-loss >>> relevance for me. Others' experience may differ. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It doesn't seem to have any significance from any perspective for > me. Interesting. It does, for me, unfortunately. > But it isn't just about fat vs. sugar; there are more weird > differences -- like cherries are really low and watermelon really [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > probably feel more satieted eating 170 calories worth of cereal or > potato than 170 calories worth of peanuts, due to the greater bulk. It is more complicated for me. I like bulk from vegetables, and calories from fat. > But I think the more significant argument made in favor of eating low > GI foods is that because they presumably raise blood sugar much less > than the higher GI foods, avoiding carb cravings a few hours later. > As I've said before, I've just never noticed this side effect. (As an This is very good for you! Carb cravings, and such, they do not affect everyone. > A mix. Offhand, the ones I remember reading about competed in > swimming (short and long distance), running (from sprint to marathon), [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the morning, then another 4-6 before dinner. She also lifts weights 3 > days a week. Scary stuff. i >>>>The other question is this: we are forever hearing that top athletes >>>>eat salad, pasta, chicken and fish, and permutations on that theme. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > does not matter if you eat 100 calories from sugar vs, say, 100 > calories from fat, as far as your satiety is concerned? Yup. Even the "discoverers" of GI say that it's not a good measure! A banana measures differently depending on ripes, individual consuming it, etc. Pasta measures differently depending on cooking time, type of flour, individual consuming it, and so on. Signaturejmk in NC > I *know* that every diet ever invented, whether it is low fat, low > carbohydrate, low calorie or low-anything-else says that You Must Eat [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > pasta? I thought it was supposed to have a high GI index, so Bad For > You. Wouldn't brown rice be better? Your soup recipe sounds good. I might have to give it a try. Do you know if it can be frozen? Here's an article on carb-loading. It's done mainly for endurance events. I think most of us would be better sticking to the good carbs in our diets. I do a lot of bike riding and I always eat the same breakfast before a ride as I do on regular days. I stick with the oatmeal, protein powder and ground flax seed. I do carry an energy bar with me just in case I need it. http://www.the-athletes-edge.com/cgi-local/whaz_happening.cgi If the banana satisfies you I see no reason to eat additional food. It does help to keep the metabolism working correctly when you spread the food intake out over the day. I find I need to be up for a couple hours before I eat breakfast. I'm one of those people who has to have a cup of coffee first<g> Beverly >Your soup recipe sounds good. I might have to give it a try. Do you know >if it can be frozen? I don't see why not! I have never tried, but I expect it could be. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 dr. atkins use to encourage folks to ONLY eat when hungry. so when i am hungry, i eat. (usually that is NOT at the typical breakfast time) rosie Signaturehttp://www.plur.net/thisland.html : I *know* that every diet ever invented, whether it is low fat, low : carbohydrate, low calorie or low-anything-else says that You Must Eat [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] : pasta? I thought it was supposed to have a high GI index, so Bad For : You. Wouldn't brown rice be better? http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html : Website updated 18 July 2004 There is whole wheat pasta, I've gotten to like it. But yes you should vary it with brown rice. A varied diet is crucial to nutrition, now that we know from clinical studies that the anti-oxidants and fiber in supplements don't work as well as eating the right food. > I *know* that every diet ever invented, whether it is low fat, low > carbohydrate, low calorie or low-anything-else says that You Must Eat [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > pasta? I thought it was supposed to have a high GI index, so Bad For > You. Wouldn't brown rice be better? > I *know* that every diet ever invented, whether it is low fat, low > carbohydrate, low calorie or low-anything-else says that You Must Eat > Breakfast. > > However, I'm finding quite the easiest way to drop my calorie intake is > to not eat breakfast. Over a period of weeks, most people who do eat breakfast do better on their portions for the rest of the day. If you haven't tried it for over a month, you don't know if you could be better by having breakfast. But what works for most people doesn't mean it's mandatory for everyone. If you're doing fine without breakfast, so what about how the averages are. > The other question is this: we are forever hearing that top athletes eat > salad, pasta, chicken and fish, and permutations on that theme. But why > pasta? I thought it was supposed to have a high GI index, so Bad For > You. Wouldn't brown rice be better? Are YOU a top athlete? I'm not! Why should I care in the least about eating programs for top athletes? I know right now they don't apply to me in the least. I couldn't care less why some heavy competitive athlete going out for a professional sports team is supposed to eat pasta. Sure, for me brown rice would work better than pasta. Likely that's true for you too. Unless you compete it's unlikely eating programs for top athletes are of any use to you. >> The other question is this: we are forever hearing that top athletes eat >> salad, pasta, chicken and fish, and permutations on that theme. But why [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Are YOU a top athlete? I'm not! Why should I care in the least >about eating programs for top athletes? I'm not a top athlete (although I am a triple international gold medallist in my sport), but the reason why I care is that athletes, of all people, eat healthily. I would have thought a diet based on chicken or fish, fresh vegetables and pasta (or, perhaps, rice) would be healthy by anybody's standards, no? > I know right now they >don't apply to me in the least. I couldn't care less why some >heavy competitive athlete going out for a professional sports >team is supposed to eat pasta. I was brought up to believe that a healthy diet contained healthy amounts of complex carbohydrates; obviously sugar, being a simple carbohydrate is out, and modern thinking, I know, looks at the GI index of all carbohydrate foods. >Sure, for me brown rice would work better than pasta. Likely >that's true for you too. Unless you compete it's unlikely eating >programs for top athletes are of any use to you. Why would a healthy eating programme *not* be of use to me, or anybody else? SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 >>> The other question is this: we are forever hearing that top athletes eat >>> salad, pasta, chicken and fish, and permutations on that theme. But why [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm not a top athlete (although I am a triple international gold > medallist in my sport), I am impressed! > but the reason why I care is that athletes, of all people, eat > healthily. I would have thought a diet based on chicken or fish, > fresh vegetables and pasta (or, perhaps, rice) would be healthy by > anybody's standards, no? What is healthy depends on the person and what they do. It is not a given that pasta is healthy and unhealthy for everyone. Some people do great eating cookies all day long. > Why would a healthy eating programme *not* be of use to me, or anybody > else? If you are slim, very active, and eat servings of pasta here and there, all the power to you. If you are overweight and pasta makes you hungry and you find yourself overeating after a few hours passes after your pasta meal, then you probably need to reassess your pasta eating. A good sign of this would be trying to lose weight and being unable to. If you find yourself in this position, then, junking pasta would be a good option. There is not a great deal of difference between how "simple carbohydrates" and "complex carbohydrates" are metabolized. i >If you are overweight and pasta makes you hungry and you find yourself >overeating after a few hours passes after your pasta meal, then you >probably need to reassess your pasta eating. Why would eating pasta make one hungry? I find that eating a healthy, balanced amount of carbohydrate with my meal, whether this be pasta, rice, potatoes or bread, helps me feel far less hungry and more satisfied. > A good sign of this would >be trying to lose weight and being unable to. If you find yourself in >this position, then, junking pasta would be a good option. No, because what would one then have left to eat? Just the tomato sauce.... I don't think I could cope with that! I really *would* feel hungry, then! >There is not a great deal of difference between how "simple >carbohydrates" and "complex carbohydrates" are metabolized. No, but you get "more bang for your buck" with simple carbohydrates - *all* sugar does is provide energy, so, while all carbohydrates are 4 Kc per gramme, you get more pure carbohydrate in a teaspoon of sugar than you do in a slice of bread. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 >>If you are overweight and pasta makes you hungry and you find yourself >>overeating after a few hours passes after your pasta meal, then you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rice, potatoes or bread, helps me feel far less hungry and more > satisfied. Then, I guess, pasta is great for you. Which is a good sign with respect to your health and longevity and such. Perhaps your good exercise can also get some credit for it. Many people with not as good health as you, see their blood sugar rise after an hour or two, and theh fall quickly, which makes them very hungry. >> A good sign of this would >>be trying to lose weight and being unable to. If you find yourself in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sauce.... I don't think I could cope with that! I really *would* feel > hungry, then! Not that I think that it applies to you, but, there is a ton of food that can be eaten that does not include pasta. I, myself, never liked pasta very much to begin with. But since you do well with pasta and like it, why not eat it in moderation? >>There is not a great deal of difference between how "simple >>carbohydrates" and "complex carbohydrates" are metabolized. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > per gramme, you get more pure carbohydrate in a teaspoon of sugar than > you do in a slice of bread. A regular slice of white bread contains 13 grams of carbs. A teaspoon of sugar contains 4 grams of carbs. (source: fitday) Both simple and complex carbohydrates are "pure" carbs and contain same energy, per gram of carbs. i >A regular slice of white bread contains 13 grams of carbs. > >A teaspoon of sugar contains 4 grams of carbs. Yes, but the bread contains other nutrients, the sugar doesn't. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 >>A regular slice of white bread contains 13 grams of carbs. >> >>A teaspoon of sugar contains 4 grams of carbs. >> > Yes, but the bread contains other nutrients, the sugar doesn't. That's true. i > > If you are overweight and pasta makes you hungry and you find yourself > > overeating after a few hours passes after your pasta meal, then you > > probably need to reassess your pasta eating. > > Why would eating pasta make one hungry? Addictive binge triggers are discovered by following the Atkins process, also by paleolithic eating and isolation systems. Eating pasta *does* make some people ravenously hungry and those people need to avoid it completely. > I find that eating a healthy, > balanced amount of carbohydrate with my meal, whether this be pasta, > rice, potatoes or bread, helps me feel far less hungry and more > satisfied. Good for you but don't assume it works that way for everyone. There are folks who binge if they eat a bite of potato or whatever. > > If you find yourself in > > this position, then, junking pasta would be a good option. > > No, because what would one then have left to eat? Just the tomato > sauce.... I don't think I could cope with that! Huh? Junk the pasta and you're left with, uhm, steak, brocolli, lobster, asparugus and on and on and on. There are tons of non-pasta foods in the world. > > There is not a great deal of difference between how "simple > > carbohydrates" and "complex carbohydrates" are metabolized. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > per gramme, you get more pure carbohydrate in a teaspoon of sugar than > you do in a slice of bread. Many also get more insulin reaction as well. Ignoramus wrote: > If you are slim, very active, and eat servings of pasta here and > there, all the power to you. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There is not a great deal of difference between how "simple > carbohydrates" and "complex carbohydrates" are metabolized. In my previous life, pasta was something I ate *lots* of several times every week. That had to stop when I wanted to lose weight. BUT I didn't want to completely give up a food I really loved all my life. So instead of a huge bowl (or two!)with a heavy meat sauce, I measure out a cup and then pile on some roasted zucchini and/or eggplant, some marinara and find it to be totally satisfying. I probably have this once every 3 weeks or so. It's part of the program I've worked out for myself and seems to work out fine. I can eat anything I want - I just can't have it all *today*. SignatureWalking (or riding!) on . . . Laurie in Maine 207/110 60 inches of attitude! Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 > Ignoramus wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I can eat anything I want - I just can't have it all *today*. That's what I really like about restricting calories, that I can have anything -- or almost anything -- I want, just not all at once. i > > > The other question is this: we are forever hearing that top athletes eat > > > salad, pasta, chicken and fish, and permutations on that theme. But why [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm not a top athlete (although I am a triple international gold > medallist in my sport) If you have those medals then I don't get why you deny you're a top althete in that sport. Have you retired from competition numerous years ago? If so then the medals are cool history not current status. > but the reason why I care is that athletes, of all people, eat > healthily. *For their current situtation* *based on their current knowledge*. Neither automatically translates to someone interested in losing weight. Racing cars can use a mixture of ethanol and ethyl nitrate. What would happen if you put fuel like that in your car for your commute to work? It may well blow up in your driveway! *Different current situtation*. > I would have thought a diet based on chicken or fish, fresh > vegetables and pasta (or, perhaps, rice) would be healthy > by anybody's standards, no? No. I was with you all the way up to your mention of pasta. Also note that vegans wouldn't hav emade it that far into your statement. You're generalizing. > > I know right now they > > don't apply to me in the least. I couldn't care less why some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > carbohydrate is out, and modern thinking, I know, looks at the GI index > of all carbohydrate foods. I was raised to think that too. Doesn't mean it was actually correct. George Washington was raised that bleeding was good for the sick and look at what good it did for him. Christopher Columbus was raised that the Earth is flat but he got over it. > > Sure, for me brown rice would work better than pasta. Likely > > that's true for you too. Unless you compete it's unlikely eating > > programs for top athletes are of any use to you. > > Why would a healthy eating programme *not* be of use to me, or anybody > else? Being healthy for someone else in a different situtation doesn't mean it's good for you in your current situation. Take your current situation, and use that as a basis. Don't just look at any random plan and ignore what situation it's intended for and assume it's for you. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. >> I'm not a top athlete (although I am a triple international gold >> medallist in my sport) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >years ago? If so then the medals are cool history not current >status. No, but they are against my peers in age and ability, not against the objective best. >> but the reason why I care is that athletes, of all people, eat >> healthily. > >*For their current situtation* *based on their current knowledge*. >Neither automatically translates to someone interested in losing >weight. As far as I am aware, current thinking still recommends a way of eating based on complex carbohydrates, fruit and vegetables, with protein from low-fat sources, a little mono-unsaturated fat, and as little saturated fat, sugar and alcohol as one could manage. Unless, of course, one follows a faddy diet that cuts out an entire food group. >> I would have thought a diet based on chicken or fish, fresh >> vegetables and pasta (or, perhaps, rice) would be healthy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Also note that vegans wouldn't hav emade it that far into your >statement. You're generalizing. Someone who is vegetarian or vegan would not eat chicken or fish, certainly, but it was you, I think, who mentioned steak and lobster in another post - both foods that I would only eat occasionally, if at all, because of the saturated fat content, to say nothing of the price! >> I was brought up to believe that a healthy diet contained healthy >> amounts of complex carbohydrates; obviously sugar, being a simple [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I was raised to think that too. Doesn't mean it was actually >correct. I have yet to have it proved to my satisfaction that cutting out an entire food group is a healthy way to eat. Even a low fat diet contains a little fat, particularly mono-unsaturates. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 > > *For their current situtation* *based on their current knowledge*. > > Neither automatically translates to someone interested in losing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fat, sugar and alcohol as one could manage. Unless, of course, one > follows a faddy diet that cuts out an entire food group. 1) Name a faddy diet that cuts out an entire food group. No, a real actual one not your distorted image of it. (Hint, this is a trick question since there are none. Hint, if you can think of one you don't have the slightest notion of what the plan actually is in reality). 2) Who made up the concept of food groups in the first place and why is it considered valid anyways? There are no ill effects whatsoever from avoiding certain types of food. Eat no grain for your entire life and it has no impact on your health, societies in the Arctic icecap for example. Eat no diary for your entire life after being weaned and it has no impact on your health. The key to healthy food is variety not a catalog. > > > I was brought up to believe that a healthy diet contained healthy > > > amounts of complex carbohydrates; obviously sugar, being a simple [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I have yet to have it proved to my satisfaction that cutting out an > entire food group is a healthy way to eat. There are no actual diets that do that, so your point is lost in irrelevancy. > Even a low fat diet contains a little fat, particularly > mono-unsaturates. Specific fatty acids are essential so no plan that targets zero fat works. A program that pushes zero fat would inevitably lead those who follow it to poor health. Thus there are no such programs on the market. Any that come out fail and disspear from the market place. The fatty acids that are essential are neither monounsaturates nor saturates. The essential ones are Omega-3 and Oemga-9 polyunsaturates. Since the body can convert among types of each, there aren't any exact types that are essential just the two classes. Nut oils have plenty of the two essential types. That's why nuts are such healthy foods. As long as you don't go out of control eating too many. A handfull. >> > *For their current situtation* *based on their current knowledge*. >> > Neither automatically translates to someone interested in losing [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > are such healthy foods. As long as you don't go out of control > eating too many. A handfull. Doug, while what you said makes a lot of sense, in general, Annabel seems to be a person who is doing okay eating those grains and carbs, according to some of her self descriptions. i >Doug, while what you said makes a lot of sense, in general, Annabel >seems to be a person who is doing okay eating those grains and carbs, >according to some of her self descriptions. Indeed; thank you. I'm afraid Doug comes across as extraordinarily aggressive, so I don't plan to respond to his comments. Anyway, I've no time now.... SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 * On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 at 14:15:56, Ignoramus31782 * <ignoramus31782@NOSPAM.31782.invalid> wrote: * * >Doug, while what you said makes a lot of sense, in general, Annabel * >seems to be a person who is doing okay eating those grains and carbs, * >according to some of her self descriptions. * > * Indeed; thank you. I'm afraid Doug comes across as extraordinarily * aggressive, so I don't plan to respond to his comments. Anyway, I've no * time now.... Doug is a very fine guy actually, and not at all aggressive and very intelligent. He does sometimes succumb to the hammer and nail syndrome though, which is hard to avoid anyway. Some people do come across as aggressive even if they do not mean it... i >>Doug, while what you said makes a lot of sense, in general, Annabel >>seems to be a person who is doing okay eating those grains and carbs, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >aggressive, so I don't plan to respond to his comments. Anyway, I've no >time now.... I've also done just fine eating grains and carbs -- among other things, of course. I try to make selections with good nutritional bang for the buck, but don't restrict any types of foods. Chris 262/143/ (145-150) >>>Doug, while what you said makes a lot of sense, in general, Annabel >>>seems to be a person who is doing okay eating those grains and carbs, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Chris > 262/143/ (145-150) I also eat grains and carbs, at least grains until very recently. I am now experimenting with eating no grains at all, and it turns out that I am much less hungry this way. I used to eat a slice of bread in the morning, I subtracted it a week ago, and it made me a little less hungry. Will experiment some more, to ascertain that this is reliably true and not just a fluke. i > > 262/143/ (145-150) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > i Sounds like "Animal Farm." Amy >I also eat grains and carbs, at least grains until very recently. I am >now experimenting with eating no grains at all, and it turns out that >I am much less hungry this way. I used to eat a slice of bread in the >morning, I subtracted it a week ago, and it made me a little less >hungry. Will experiment some more, to ascertain that this is reliably >true and not just a fluke. I believe some people do extremely well after cutting out bread and pasta for the simple reason that they had an unsuspected gluten or wheat intolerance, and cutting it out of their diet made them feel very much better and also stopped them bloating - a friend of my mother's, who tried the Atkins diet to lose weight, discovered that way that she had a gluten intolerance and now feels 100% better (plus, she has lost weight, I understand!). However, not everybody is gluten- or wheat-intolerant! SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 >>I also eat grains and carbs, at least grains until very recently. I am >>now experimenting with eating no grains at all, and it turns out that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > gluten intolerance and now feels 100% better (plus, she has lost weight, > I understand!). However, not everybody is gluten- or wheat-intolerant! You are 100% right. i > > Doug, while what you said makes a lot of sense, in general, Annabel > > seems to be a person who is doing okay eating those grains and carbs, > > according to some of her self descriptions. Doing well trumps doing poorly. But does it trump also truth? > Indeed; thank you. I'm afraid Doug comes across as extraordinarily > aggressive, so I don't plan to respond to his comments. Pick a false reason for having a stance, and I am aggressive. Pick a true reason, and I am supportive. Good reason - <I tried low fat first and it worked for me, so I never bothered to learn about low carb. Lacking the knowledge I resist making ludicrous statements about eliminating entire food groups and such that at a glance are bound to be inaccurate.> Bad reason - <I made up a bunch of false statements about low carb or I accepted a bunch of false statements without checking, so I never considered low carb. Therefore I only tried low fat. But since low fat worked for me I spout the false statements like they are true.> It's good that you're doing well, but that doesn't allow you to make up false statements about plans you don't know about. A bit on the mechanism of how low fat works without cutting calories below reasonable amounts, to show that I understand both low carbing and low fatting and my bias is against false statements per se not against low fat in general: The body consumes a certain minimum amount of fat per day no matter the amount that is eaten. It's consumed for making new cells, repairing old cells, burned as fuel, and probably other uses. Various dietary tricks can cause the amount burned to be higher (aerobic exercise to actively burn it, anaerobic exercise to indirectly increase the long term consumption, ketosis to increase the resting burn rate, etc), but nothing can reduce the minimum. Eat less fat than the minimum, and the body must either take it from stored fat or convert it from dietary protein and carbs. But the minimum fat consumed is in polyunsaturated fats to some extent and the body can only produce saturated fats from protein and carb energy. The result is a gradual forced reduction in stored fat, and sure enough reduction in stored fat is the goal of nearly all dieters. No matter how much carbs you eat, it doesn't overcome this loophole. All you need to do is avoid eating so much carbs that the amount converted to saturated fat is less than the amount withdrawn and the conversion process is very ineffecient. All that's needed to ensure net loss of stored fat is to forbid overeating total calories. Sure enough all popular low fat programs do exactly that as do all popular low carb programs and all other popular weight loss programs. So how do you optimize the results of a low fat plan? By keeping your intake of polyunsaturates the majority of your fat intake rather than saturates. Since the minimum taken from storage is polyunsaturates that are drawn from reserves to build cells, feed that portion and starve the saturates. Since the majority of stored fat that folks want to reduce is saturates, tune your intake to have the lost fat be the satures. Incidentally, cravings for fat aren't specific to type. If you reduce your fat intake of polyunsaturates you will deplete your reserves and trigger cravings while if you deplete your store of saturates the body can make new saturates so it doesn't trigger as much cravings. This is why the popular press condemns saturated fat. The assumption is that low fat is the one and only why to lose (false) combined with the assumption that once low fatting reducing saturates but not polyunsaturates triggers loss of stored fat not cell building reserves (true). Of course if you dig into the mechanism deeper and deeper there is a lot more to learn. Two classes of essential fatty acids, the body's ability to burn monounsaturates but not to store them, feedback loops of various hormones that control metabolism that cause this low fat metabolic loophole, etc. >> > Doug, while what you said makes a lot of sense, in general, Annabel >> > seems to be a person who is doing okay eating those grains and carbs, >> > according to some of her self descriptions. > > Doing well trumps doing poorly. But does it trump also truth? I am not sure what truth, I may be missing something. Annabel is not experiencing hunger after eating pasta etc, the way she is describing herself, she is metabolising those carbs just fine. So she can be losing weight, eating pasta, and not feel excessively hungry or miserable, according to her. i >>> > Doug, while what you said makes a lot of sense, in general, Annabel >>> > seems to be a person who is doing okay eating those grains and carbs, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >losing weight, eating pasta, and not feel excessively hungry or >miserable, according to her. As far as I know... mind you, after a week in Warsaw during which losing weight was about the *last* thing on my mind, I need to "jump-start" again... Sigh.... but as I have found low-fat eating the way that works for me in the past, it will probably work again in the future. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 >>>> > Doug, while what you said makes a lot of sense, in general, Annabel >>>> > seems to be a person who is doing okay eating those grains and carbs, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > again... Sigh.... but as I have found low-fat eating the way that works > for me in the past, it will probably work again in the future. I hope that at least, you liked Polish food. i who is not Polish but likes some Polish food |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.